Legal Opinion
REYNOLDS v. FALLIN
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 29, 2016No. 114,481PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COMBS, V.C.J.:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{1 At issue here is the constxtutlonahty of various provisions of three general appropriation bills enacted in 2012 through 2014. On July 29, 2015, the Appellant (Reynolds) filed an amended petition 1 presetiting 18 causes of action concerning SB 1975 (2012 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 811), HB 2301 (2018 Okla, Sess. Laws c. 818), and SB 2127 (2014 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 420), Reynolds asserts these three general appropriation bills contain substantive legislation in violation of Okla, Const. art. 5, § 56 and some sections do not specify the object for the appropriation in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Reherman v. Oklahoma Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Fent v. Contingency Review BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Indiana National Bank v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- Rogers v. QuikTrip Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- Tamra Acorn, Rebecca Shwen, and Federer Holding Company, LLC, a Wyoming close limited liability company v. Lori Moncecchi and Dino MoncecchiWyoming Supreme Court · 2016
- INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 v. HOFMEISTERSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2020
- REYNOLDS v. FALLINSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016